AnnimmuL Izm

AnnimmuL Iz FohnehTik Eeng-GLish Fohr ( A n i m a L EenunseeaeeTed Ay-ny-maL )

See: Wy PrakTiss UhgehnsT Smahl T

AnnimmuL Izm Mayn LisT Uhv KonTenTs Uhv AnnimmuL Izm

AnnimmuL Wrd Deskripshuhnz

AnnimmuLz Kommuhn Feechrz

AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz

RyTs Uhv Annimmulz

AnnimmuL EesenchuL NooTrishuhn

Animal Essential Nutrition

End Uhv AnnimmuL Izm Mayn LisT Uhv KonTenTs

AnnimmuL Wrd Deskripshuhnz

EhTimmoLLuhjee Uv AnnimmuL

animal (adj.)
late 14c., "pertaining to the animal spirit of man," that is, "pertaining to the merely sentient (as distinguished from the intellectual, rational, or spiritual) qualities of a human being," from Latin animalis, from animale (see animal (n.)).

From 1540s as "pertaining to sensation;" 1630s as "pertaining to or derived from beasts;" 1640s as "pertaining to the animal kingdom" (as opposed to vegetable or mineral); 1650s as "having life, living." Animal rights is attested from 1879; animal liberation from 1973. Animal magnetism originally (1784) referred to mesmerism.

animal (n.)

early 14c., "any sentient living creature" (including humans), from Latin animale "living being, being which breathes," noun use of neuter of animalis (adj.) "animate, living; of the air," from anima "breath, soul; a current of air" (from PIE root *ane- "to breathe;" compare deer). A rare word in English before c. 1600, and not in KJV (1611). Commonly only of non-human creatures. It drove out the older beast in common usage. Used derisively of brutish humans (in which the "animal," or non-rational, non-spiritual nature is ascendant) from 1580s.

[[iclude annimmulz-kommuhn-feechrz]]

Ryts Uhv Annimmulz

RyTs Uhv Annimmulz

Recognition of the Rights of Animals and Nature In the Federation of Earth

Recognizing that, in the words of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, the human being must be a source of bliss for every being; recognizing also that the human being is not the only source of bliss;

Recognizing that, in the words of Sri Krishna, all are one–and that, in the words of Albert Schweitzer, the way back to civilization lies through the reverence for life;

Aware, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, of the interdependence of people, nations and all life–and aware that man’s abuse of science and technology has brought humanity also to the brink of ecological catastrophe;

Recognizing that, as described in the Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States, the destruction of the natural world has progressed to an advanced stage, to a stage where, many authorities agree, within 30 to 50 years perhaps 50% or more of the world’s animal species will have become extinct–
unless the prevalent attitude of humanity toward the status of animals changes radically;

Recognizing that, at least since the time of Darwin, it has been scientifically established that humankind shares in significant degree a common origin with the rest of the natural world and especially with its animal species;

Recognizing that, with few exceptions, under present law the inhumane treatment of animals is common practice in scientific laboratories, factory farms, and at the hands of hunters and trappers–and that present national basic laws do little to implement an ethic of the protection of nature;

Recognizing that we need to be concerned not only with the future of humanity, but also, under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, with the fate of the planet;

Recognizing, finally, that under the Call to the Provisional World Parliament, the business of the World Parliament includes a concern with global environmental protection;

And as an expression of love;

THEREFORE, be it enacted by this provisional World Parliament in first session, 1982:

1. From the date of adoption of this resolution by the provisional World Parliament, in all considerations and decisions bearing upon the present conditions and future of humanity, the Earth Federation shall consider the interests of other species.

2. From the date of adoption of this resolution by the Provisional World Parliament,

the following activities are strongly discouraged or prohibited:

2.1. All practices of factory farming involving animals;

2.2. Research using animals as experimental subjects, of the trapping and hunting of animals

except by peoples for their own subsistence use, and not including for cash sales or trade;

2.3. Employment of animals in cruel sport;

2.4. Removal of species from native habitat, in disregard of protective standards for removals;

2.5. Production of so-called animal “products” for profit.

3. The provisional World Parliament and

provisional World Government shall establish a World Environmental Protection Agency, which shall include

in the scope of its responsibilities the implementation of this resolution and the supervision of the

establishment of the recognition of rights of animal throughout the world.

(See WLA#9 summary or full text, first adopted 1987, 3rd session, revised 2004, 8th session.)

4. Until a more fully operative democratic world federation is established, the World Environmental Protection Agency is responsible to the provisional World Parliament, and to any provisional World Cabinet that is created by the provisional World Parliament. The World Environmental Protection Agency has a Board of Trustees of twenty-five members, to be appointed by the provisional World Cabinet, to be drawn from all parts of the Earth, and to include no fewer than five well-known advocates of animal rights. The Board of Trustees shall determine the organization and functioning of the World Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the terms of this resolution and in conformance with the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, while at all times responsible to the Cabinet and Parliament. No nation may have veto powers in the decisions of the World Environmental Protection Agency.

5. At subsequent sessions of the provisional World Parliament, the Parliament will review implementation of this resolution, and will take further action as appropriate.

  • * * * * * * * * *

Above adopted 6th September 1982, at Brighton, England, first session of the Provisional World Parliament. First draft was written by John Stockwell. The work was introduced by Sally Curry, delegate Member of the Parliament from Canada.


Eugenia Almand, JD, Secretary
Provisional World Parliament

See Life Essential Nutrition ANd|Ohr Animal Essential Nutrition And|Ohr Essential Nutrients For Humans Fohr Leengks Tu Vegan And VegeTarian Food OpTs For BeesTs And UhThr AnimaLs.

Animal Esential Nutrition

Animal Essential Nutrition Uhv Animal Sizomes Uhv Syz Ohmz Uhv Omneeonizm

Welkum tw Helth izmz for LyF Selz, plants, animals and humans…

Lyf EesehnchuL NuuTrishuhn Iz FohnehTik EengLish Fohr Life EssenTial NuTriTion


Included page "nuukleeik-assidz-kyndz-and-pahrts-and-food-sohrss-lists" does not exist (create it now)

Included page "nuukleeoh-kyndz-and-pahrts-and-food-sohrss-lists" does not exist (create it now)

See also:
* Nucleotides in Food
* Orotic acid (vitamin B13) - sources, benefits, dosage, deficiency, overdose, toxicity
* Vegetables High in Purines | Healthy Eating | SF Gate
* Top Ten Foods Highest in Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)
* Top Ten Foods High in Phosphorus

* protein-for-vegans-vegetarians
* Eat Up: The Best Food Choices for Omega-3, Omega-6 and Omega-9 Essential Fatty Acids | PerriconeMD
* Top 10 Foods Highest in Omega 6 Fatty Acids

The Basic Needs Of Living Things

Every living organism on earth needs some basic things to survive.

The amount, way, form or kind of these needs vary from organism to organism…

There are five basic needs that all living things have. They are

Sunlight: This is probably the most important need for all living organisms, because it is the source of all energy. It also provides heat for plants and animals

Water: Water is the medium in which living cells and tissue work. Water is also a living environment for many plants and animals.

[Living water iz water in a living cell.]

Air: Air is made up of several gases, but the two most important gases are Oxygen and Carbon dioxide. Without oxygen, animals will die, and without carbon dioxide, plants cannot survive.

Food (nutrients): Living things need energy for function. Energy is needed to grow, reproduce, move, and to work. Think of what will happen if you stayed for three days without food…

A Habitat with the Right Temperature: Too cold or too hot? Every living organism needs the ideal temperature to survive either on land or in water.

Essential Nutrients For Animals Uhv Animal Essential Nutrition

Following Frum Basic Needs Of Living Things

Food Requirements and Essential Nutrients

Essential nutrients are those that cannot be created by an animal’s metabolism and need to be obtained from the diet.

Key Points:
The animal diet needs to be well-balanced in order to ensure that all necessary vitamins and minerals are being obtained.
Vitamins are important for maintaining bodily health, making bones strong, and seeing in the dark.
Water-soluble vitamins are not stored by the body and need to be consumed more regularly than fat-soluble vitamins, which build up within body tissues.
Essential fatty acids need to be consumed through the diet and are important building blocks of cell membranes.
Nine of the 20 amino acids cannot be synthesized by the body and need to be obtained from the diet.

Chordates are animals with backbones.

An chordate takes in food through the mouth. The chordate has a mouth with a tongue. Some have teeth and some do not. It has a digestive system with stomach, intestines. Chordates eat plants and animals.

Nutrient acquisition strategies of mammalian cells

Mammalian cells are surrounded by diverse nutrients, such as glucose, amino acids, various macromolecules and micronutrients, which they can import through transmembrane transporters and endolysosomal pathways. By using different nutrient sources, cells gain metabolic flexibility to survive periods of starvation. Quiescent cells take up sufficient nutrients to sustain homeostasis.

AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz

AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz Uhv AnnimmuL Izm

Mayn LisT uhv KonTenTs Uhv AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz

PrimmiTTiv AnnimmuL Izm

BeesT Wrd Deskripshuhn Uhv BeesT Izm

EThiks MohraLLiTee Izm Uhv EThiks Izm

End Uhv Mayn LisT uhv KonTenTs Uhv AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz

PrimmiTTiv AnnimmuL Izm

PrimmiTTiv AnnimmuL Izm Uhv AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz

PrimmiTTiv Tek Vrsuhss Tek WiTh Mynd Uhv PrimmiTTiv Tek Izm
Uhv SyenTiffik Baysik Kynd Typs Ohrdrd By Syz Uhv Omneeon Izm

PrimmiTTiv Tek FayLz Tu InkLood AhL Uhv Thuh FoLLoweeng Tek Ohrganz Needed Fohr Wrkeeng Mynd:

Tek Ohrganz Needed Fohr Wrkeeng Mynd

1: A Min Uhv Wuhn BiLT In PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Prossessr ThaT Kan InTrpreT And AnimayT A PrimmiTTiv Task.

2: A PrimmiTTiv Task Iz A [[Seekwenss LisT]]] In Wich Eech Membr Iz An AnimmayTuhbL InsTrukshuhn Uhv A PrimmiTTiv Task Lang.

Included page "primmittiv-task-lang-izm" does not exist (create it now)

PrimmiTTiv Task Lang Trm Deskripshuhnz:

3: A PrimiTTiv Task Lang InkLoodz A Min Uhv Wuhn Groop Uhv PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhnz In Wich Eech Membr Iz A PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Kohd Uhv PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Izm.

PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn

[[include PrimmiTTiv-InsTrukshuhn-Izm]]]

PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Trm Deskripshuhnz

A PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Iz A Min Uhv Wuhn PrimmiTTiv Lang Kohd Wich RepreezenTs An AnimmayTuhbL InsTrukshuhn.

3: An AnimmayTuhbL InsTrukshuhn Iz A Min Uhv Wuhn Lang Kohd ThaT Iz Thuh Saym Az An InsTrukshuhn Kohd Wich Iz Thuh SimbuL In Thuh PrimmiTTiv Task Lang Wich Thuh PrimmiTTiv InsTrukshuhn Prossessr Kan AnnimmayT Az A PrimmiTTiv AkT.

A PrimmiTiv AnnimmuL Iz Deskrybd Az:

A PrimmiTiv AnnimmuL

BeesT Izm

Uhv AnnimmuL Baysik Kyndz Ohrdrd By Syz Uhv AnnimmuL Izm

BeesT Wrd Deskripshuhnz

BeesT Wrd Deskripshuhnz Uhv BeesT Izm

ETimmoLLuhjee Uv Wrd BeesT]

NexT TexT Fruhm

beast (n.)

c. 1200, beste, "one of the lower animals" (opposed to man), especially "a four-footed animal," also "a marvelous creature, a monster" (mermaids, werewolves, lamia, satyrs, the beast of the Apocalypse), "a brutish or stupid man," from Old French beste "animal, wild beast," figuratively "fool, idiot" (11c., Modern French bête), from Vulgar Latin *besta, from Latin bestia "beast, wild animal," which is of unknown origin.

Used in Middle English to translate Latin animal. Replaced Old English deor (see deer) as the generic word for "wild creature," only to be ousted 16c. by animal.

Wrd "Beest" Jenrulyzd Deskripshuhn Az Animul ( With Ohr That Kan Grow ) Uh Brain, Oft wyld.

WyLd PrehdiTTohrz Shood Lrn Tu Akt Az SivviLLyzd Annimmulz

Included page "wyld-prehdittohrz-shood-lrn-tu-akt-az-sivvillyzd-annimmulz" does not exist (create it now)

Wen BeesT Growz InTu Prsuhn

Wen BeesT Growz InTu Prsuhn Uhv BeesT RyTs Uhv BeesT Syz Ohmz
Uhv Thuh ReeL Prwvd TrwTH Syz Ohmz Uhv Thuh Baisik Kyndz Syz Ohmz Paidj LisT

BeesT Dehskripshuhn Az JehnruLyzayshuhn Uhv BeesT Izm

See: Wy PrakTiss UhgehnsT SmahL T

Eech AnnimmuL Dehskrybd Az A BeesT Haz 3 Kommuhn AtribyuuTs:
1: Mohr AdvannsT Than PrimmiTTiv AnnimmmuL.
2: And Haz A Brayn
3: Thoh Non Haz Handz.


Defining rights for non-humans beyond bestowing them with “personhood” can only become more important as we learn more about animal cognition…

In any case, what qualifies a being as deserving of rights? The NhRP has vowed to fight for personhood for other “intelligent” animals, like dolphins, whales, and elephants. But exactly what constitutes intelligence is hotly debated in the animal cognition world, and, ultimately, our definition is heavily biased toward our own species’ traits.. We think of ourselves as the smartest creatures around, so we look for human-like traits in animals. Some markers researchers have identified include self-awareness, planning and problem solving, learning from peers, and communication skills. Given these human-centric criteria, it’s unsurprising that humans are the only animals known to reliably meet all of them. Still, many other species have been shown to possess a subset of these indicators. While the NhRP recognizes animals like the primates, dolphins, whales, and elephants as intelligent, there are many other animals that we regularly overlook: Bees perform complex dance moves to show their peers where food is; crows wait for cars to crush nuts for them to eat; and lizards are capable of problem solving…

In any case, it doesn’t seem like the cognitive abilities of animals have any bearing on their legal protection. There are plenty of smart cold-blooded animals—birds, reptiles, fish, even insects—but only warm-blooded animals are covered by the AWA, which defines standards for research animals or animals for commercial sale. Standards for farm animals are generally lower—they are designed to ensure animals will not suffer “unnecessary cruelty”—though farm animals are not necessarily any less intelligent than animals covered under the AWA. Chickens are adept at problem-solving, especially when food is involved, and and appear to empathize with peers in distress. Octopuses solve complicated problems, and can even form opinions about individual humans. Pigs appear capable of deception. Fish learn from watching other fish.

When does an animal count as a person?

A grassroots movement has recently emerged in which a number of scientists, philosophers, ethicists and legal experts have rallied together in support of the idea that some nonhuman animals are persons and thus deserving of human-like legal protections. Their efforts have subsequently thrown conventional notions of personhood into question by suggesting that humans aren't the only persons on the planet. So what is a person, exactly? We spoke to two experts to find out…

The kind of beings that we are
Lori Marino, through her efforts with the NhRP, is trying to secure legal protections for a special subset of nonhuman species, a list of highly sapient animals that includes all the great apes (like bonobos and chimpanzees), elephants, cetaceans (which includes both dolphins and whales), and even some birds…

If and when these laws get passed, nonhuman persons would be protected from such things as torture, experimentation, slavery, confinement (including zoos and water parks), and the threat of unnatural death (like hunting and outright murder). Essentially, if you wouldn't do it to a human, you wouldn't do it to a nonhuman person.


The division of the body into head and trunk becomes apparent, and the brain, spinal cord, and internal organs begin to develop. All of these changes are completed early in embryonic development, by about the fourth week, in humans.

A Min Prsuhn

  • MyT Hav Uhbihlihteez Tu:
    • Senss, Theengk, Lrn And Mwv.

PoTenTial Vocabulary:

  • How Many Wrds
    • Kan Thuh Prsuhn Lrn
      • Az a ChyL
        • Uhv A Parent Teech Ist.


The term fetal rights came into wide usage following the landmark 1973 Abortion case roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy. She also had a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term. In making its decision, the Court…maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother…

Unborn children as constitutional persons.

As an effect of the unanimity of the states in holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons. Furthermore, to the extent Justice Blackmun examined the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error. Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons.

Because of improvements in fetal monitoring and surgical techniques, physicians increasingly recommend that women give birth by cesarean section, a surgical technique that involves removing the fetus through an incision in the woman's abdomen. In many cases, cesarean section improves the chance that the fetus will be delivered safely. By 1990, cesarean sections accounted for almost 23 percent of U.S. childbirths…

The 1980s saw an increasing number of cases in which hospitals and physicians sought court orders to force women to give birth by cesarean section…

…[T]he position of the American Medical Association (AMA) on the issue: The AMA has reminded physicians that their duty is to ensure that a pregnant woman is provided with the necessary and appropriate information to enable her to make an informed decision about her fetus and that that duty does not extend to attempting to influence her decision or attempting to force a recommended procedure upon her.

Fetal Protection Policies
Fetal protection policies bar fertile women from specific jobs out of fear that those jobs may cause harm to any embryos or fetuses the women might be carrying. These policies came into widespread use by many companies during the 1970s and 1980s, before a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499U.S. 187, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158, declared them a form of sexual discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. [1982]). Despite the Court's decision in Johnson Controls, those critical of fetal protection policies feared that the policies would be continued in more subtle forms.

Unborn children as constitutional persons.

As an effect of the unanimity of the states in holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons. Furthermore, to the extent Justice Blackmun examined the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error. Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons.

Fetus Law and Legal Definition

A fetus is typically defined as a developing human at a certain point after conception to birth. The precise definition varies by applicable laws, some of which define a fetus to include the element of viability, so that it is able to survive independently outside the womb. Various laws have been enacted to protect fetuses and punish individuals who injure them or cause their death. For example, Texas' Prenatal Protection Act holds people who assault or harm a pregnant woman liable for crimes against the mother and unborn child. The issue has been raised as to whether the law requires doctors to report substance abuse of a pregnant mother. The federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 amends the legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure. The federal law requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion.

Fetal protection laws vary by state. Some states states may amend existing homicide statutes to include the fetus as a possible victim, pass statutes defining the fetus as a person or human being, so that a fetus in encompassed by other statutes applicable to all persons or human beings, enact new statutes that create the crime of injury to a fetus, fetal homicide, or "feticide", or extend wrongful death and personal injury statutes to allow civil suits against individuals who cause the death or injury of a fetus.

When Does an Artificial Intelligence Become a Person?

On artificial intelligence, animal rights, and the frontiers of legal personhood

The things that define something as someone — as a person — are complex, contested, and mutable. Thinking about the moral, legal, and philosophical arguments around who does and does not get to be a person is a crucial step as we move ever closer toward the birth of the first truly sentient machines, and the destruction of the most highly sentient, endangered animals.

What level of sophistication will artificial intelligences need to attain before we consider them people — and all the rights that entails? And at what point on the spectrum of intelligence will we be creating machines that are as smart, and as deserving of legal rights, as the sentient animals we’re driving to extinction?

“The same arguments we’re making now on behalf of chimpanzees are the same arguments that will be made when, and if, robots ever can attain consciousness,” said Steve Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.

For years, NRP staff has mounted legal challenges on behalf of nonhuman animals, hoping to use legal, moral, and scientific arguments to change the status of high-order, nonhuman animals from “things” to “persons.”

The chimpanzee shares about 99 percent of its DNA with humans — which means that, surprisingly, they have more genetic similarities with us than they do with gorillas. Like humans, chimpanzees have only a small number of offspring, with females usually giving birth once every five years of sexual maturity, and on average rearing only three children to full adulthood. In social groups they perform cooperative problem solving, teach and learn from one another, and use rudimentary tools; mentally they have at least some concept of self, an IQ comparable to a toddler, and can actually outperform humans on certain cognitive tasks.

Chimpanzees also display friendship, joy, love, fear, and sadness through body language clearly readable by human emotional standards. When exposed to stress and trauma, they have behavioral disturbances that, in some cases, meet DSM-IV criteria for depression and PTSD…

“For many centuries, the essential distinction between entities has been that of those who are things — who lack the capacity for any legal rights — and those who are persons, who have the capacity for one or more legal rights,” Wise said. “We’ve spent many years preparing a long-term, strategic litigation campaign … where we put forward arguments that elephants or chimpanzees or orcas ought to have legal rights, in fact ought to be legal persons, in terms of the sorts of values and principles which judges themselves hold.”…

Nick Bostrom, philosophy professor at Oxford University and director of the Future of Humanity Institute, is well known for writing about issues surrounding the development of superintelligent AI. Rather than debating the point at which an AI might be considered sentient, his work assumes that this will certainly happen at some point in the future, and instead questions how we should act in the present with the knowledge that we will eventually live alongside artificial minds exponentially more powerful than our own.

Though Bostrom’s work is often cited in terms of the potential dangers of AI, he’s also interested both in the idea of whether we should assign rights to artificial intelligence, and how those rights would be qualitatively different than the type of rights a natural person requires.

In order to enjoy the best quality of life, a human upload would probably demand that it live on a fast computer, that never be paused or restarted without consent — permissions which could, conceivably, be the kind of things that will one day be enshrined as legal rights for sentient artificial beings.

“This is a being that can talk, and is in many ways similar to a human: It can communicate with us, complain if we mistreat it, and so on. But what is perhaps much more realistic to assume — and this is a concern that the German philosopher Thomas Metzinger has raised — is that the first digital beings would be much more limited in their abilities, in fact much closer to nonhuman animals than humans, and so could not properly signal to us whether they were suffering.”

Which raises the question: How do we differentiate between an artificial intelligence which learns to respond as if it is thinking and feeling, and one which is genuinely able to think and feel? What standard of proof would we ask for?

Provided we accept that it will one day be possible to create machines which experience some level of sentience, then giving them the right to ethical treatment seems uncontroversial. But what about rights that go beyond the scope of avoiding suffering and into the domain of personal fulfillment — the right not just to a life, but to one that includes liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Before we continue any further, we need to step back for a minute to look again at how we define a “person.”

From a legal standpoint human, human beings are natural persons capable of holding legal rights and obligations. However, many present legal systems — like that of the United States — permit the existence of other types of legal persons, which are not flesh-and-blood entities but may nonetheless be granted personhood rights.

Additionally, Dorf said there’s a tendency to think that personhood is an all-or-nothing position with regard to rights, but this is not necessarily the case. “It’s actually possible to have rights and responsibilities à la carte: For example, infants are persons before the law but lack some of the rights and responsibilities that competent adult persons have — such as they can’t vote, but then conversely can’t be responsible for criminal acts.”

Personhood, then, is by no means a fixed category; but in the present day we tend to think of it as something that is innate in all humans, without needing a great deal of justification. In trying to evaluate the nature of our shared humanity, arguments on the basis of intelligence — the capacity to think — are quickly dismissed, since we know that there is huge variation within our species, and the suggestion that someone with a low IQ is less human is abhorrent. More often we veer toward a description based on sentience: the capacity to feel, particularly in a complex, emotional way.

But the central point to consider in discussing robotic sentience is not the sophistication of any system that we have currently built; it is that we have the ability to build systems which are able to learn. Many applications of artificial intelligence we encounter online, from chatbots to image tagging,employ artificial neural networks, a form of machine learning inspired by the design of biological nervous systems.

Given a large enough dataset and enough time to learn, neural networks are able to develop models which will allow them to carry out complex tasks with uncanny accuracy — such as recognizing faces, transcribing speech to text, or writing plays in iambic pentameter — without having been specifically programmed to do so. It’s perfectly conceivable that as processing power increases and the range of available data on human behavior grows, neural networks will be created that are able to form some approximation of what it is to be human, and to communicate their own hopes and fears in a human-like way.

The law, as history attests, should not be set in stone. Besides being a collection of rules to help us govern ourselves, law represents a repository of knowledge about how the world works, and how we as a society should respond to issues around which there may be dispute. In this sense, the process of creating new laws, and specifically of allocating new rights to sentient beings which previously had none, can be seen as a process of increasing the level of compassion embodied in our social institutions.

We don’t necessarily need to exhaust every argument for and against giving certain animals personhood to conclude that they are deserving of the benefit of the doubt; there is no downside here to being overly generous with our compassion. Likewise, though the debate on rights for artificially sentient beings may seem abstract and theoretical at present, we don’t lose out by trying to map the route of least harm ahead of time, especially given the rate of technological change in this field.

See Also=AhLsoh: